Bork uses a form of argumentation I don't think is necessarily fair or accurate in all cases but surely accurate in some. He writes:

Some moderate (i.e., lukewarm) conservatives admonish the rest of us to hold our fire until Ms. Miers's performance at her hearing tells us more about her outlook on law, but any significant revelations are highly unlikely.

What I find interesting about it is that this is the line of argument I'm used to. Normally splits on the right -- over, say, McCain, or the war -- create one side saying "we're the real conservatives." Buchanan's entire project for the last decade and half has been along these lines, condemning the GOP, National Review et al as "hijacked" institution by non-conservatives. Bush supporters said Kristol & Co. were not "real" conservatives. Sometimes this stuff can be silly, or absurd or just truthful enough to be annoying, or, in some cases absolutely true. It all depends on the circumstances. I think every intellectually honest conservative writer has at one point or another been charged with the sin of insufficient purity.

What is remarkable about the Miers nomination is that the pro-Miers side managed to define the debate as one between elitists and "heartlanders" or some similar nonsense first. There was no way that anyone could say NR, the Weekly Standard, the Federalist Society, Bork, George Will and Krauthammer were somehow collectively of insufficient conservative authenticity, especially when the defedners -- with some exceptions -- do tend to be more moderate or, as the Judge says, lukewarm. Hugh Hewitt, for example, is famously dismissive of ideological conservatism preferring to talk about Republicans versus Democrats, not liberals versus conservatives.

I actually think this is a profoundly significant signal in the ongoing -- and at times somewhat lamentable -- transformation of the GOP into a populist party. For example, I've written many times about how liberals don't understand that Fox News' popularity has had less to do with conservatism and more to do with populism than they are prepared to see. Liberals think they're the party of the people, so they tend not to understand populism when it comes from non-liberal quarters. But it is Fox's anti-elitism which pulls in the ratings more than its conservatism. This has been hard to see in the past because Fox's anti-elitism has generally been aimed at liberal institutions -- the New York Times, the ACLU, Harvard, etc. But anti-elitism and conservatism are not and never have been the same thing. And I do think this will be more obvious in the months and years to come. I think this new "elites" versus "heartlanders" trend is only going to grow within the ranks of the GOP. I can't say it's all bad or all good. But it is a major sociological change if the arguments within conservatism are now going to be about "loyalty" to our people (trans: our Party) instead of loyalty to our ideas.

Fred Barnes, Mara Liaison, Charles Krauthammer and Brit Hume discussed Borks article yesterday on Humes Special Report program. They felt Bork was way over the top in the charges he made in his article and that there is substantial evidence that George W. is a conservative and has governed as a conservative.

However, they all seemed to feel that the Miers nomination brought out into the open all the frustration and pent up anger that many conservatives have been feeling for quite some time. They felt that permanent damage has been done to the once solid conservative backing of the Republican Party, and that from now on there will be plenty of turf wars, such as Pat Toomey vs. Arlen Specter, that will not be settled by compromise.

If they are right about this--if conservatives have got to the point where they are fighting among themselves and are not willing to make compromises--then I think we have a totally different ballgame on the political scene where liberals and people like Hillary Clinton can no longer be discounted. It was only by conservatives banding together and drawing in a majority of the independents that we have been able to beat back the liberals and their governing philosophy.

Actually I think it may be more of a preference to not 'implode' the party.

The administration's mistake was confusing 'party loyalists' with those that understand how important the ideological convictions of the judges appointed. Bush has 3 more years, the judges, perhaps 20-30? Her loyalty to Bush is very likely to diminish when he returns to Crawford and she becomes enscounced in D.C. Without strong belief system, she can most definately be swayed without core beliefs. That is what is of such concern to so many.

Useful Searches

About USMessageBoard.com

USMessageBoard.com was founded in 2003 with the intent of allowing all voices to be heard. With a wildly diverse community from all sides of the political spectrum, USMessageBoard.com continues to build on that tradition. We welcome everyone despite political and/or religious beliefs, and we continue to encourage the right to free speech.

Come on in and join the discussion. Thank you for stopping by USMessageBoard.com!